12 July 2012 11:32 AM

London has a vision for new airport capacity. Now all it needs is the Victorian spirit to get it built and paid for

The long, drawn-out, futile debate about expansion of Britain’s airports is one of the most frustrating issues of our time.

Two things are certain. Firstly, if Britain is to retain its status as Europe’s leading hub for air traffic then more capacity is urgently needed. Secondly, at a time when Britain’s credit rating is strong, at ‘triple A’ and there is a desperate need for the ‘diggers’ to be seen, as the CBI argues, there could be no more appropriate step than airport expansion.

Much of the debate focuses on a third runway at Heathrow versus a new airport in then Thames Estuary. But these two objectives are not mutually exclusive. In the short term getting to work on Heathrow’s third, short runway is essential and the Tories were mad to have pledged that there would be no such runway.

If an overcrowded Heathrow is to remain our main hub for the time being, which it should, then the process should begin now. Planning permission, even with new fast track procedures, could alone take several years given the degree of opposition in middle class neighbourhoods like Richmond, where I happen to live. But as the new runway is North-South existing neighbourhoods should not be affected. Similarly, the new Boeing Dreamliner range of planes should be much quieter.

But the truth is that even with a third runway, Heathrow will be grotesquely overcrowded and with air traffic still rising exponentially London, as an entrepot City, will fail unless it has an airport fit for purpose. Like the Victorians and the Hong Kong government the UK needs to think bigger, and begin the process of building a new airport in the Thames Estuary complete with high speed rail link to central London.

Where is the cash going to come from?

How about 30 year to 50 year airport bonds, using the government’s credit rating and the excitement of the project to attract investors? Similarly, the Government could also facilitate private sector finance through government guarantees.The Norman Foster plan eventually proposes that the land at Heathrow could be turned over to housing and other development releasing cash for the Thames Estuary project.

That would certainly help. But it would be worth retaining some private jet capacity at Heathrow as well to deal with the building corporate traffic, especially along the M4 corridor.

Hong Kong, a much more densely populated area than London, demonstrated it is possible to build from scratch and put in bridges and fast transport services and in the process greatly increase capacity. That is the example that Britain needs to follow.

It is my belief that the Transport Secretary Justine Greening believes in this and the main obstacles are, as always, in the Treasury.

This is a chance for the Cameron government to do something that will market it out as visionary.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alex Brummer writes interesting articles, but one must question the need for more aircraft coming into Heathrow or anywhere else in the southeast of England. Why not build these new runways in the Midlands. Birmingham springs to mind. After all most flights are just connecting flights and it makes minutes different in flight time to go to Birmingham rather than Heathrow.
Now part two of this brilliant plan is the building of a super-fast, regular, cheap, railway connection that connects London to Birmingham.
Yes, that is an answer; and no more flights over London for heavens sake. As for London Heathrow, that airport is a national shame and perhaps it might be best not to further promote it further as the gateway to England. Neither, does it seem a good idea to turn what remains of undeveloped South Essex into urbanised sprawl. Heathrow was once undeveloped countryside. Look at it now.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.